On the one hand, massively contradictory statements surely make someone an unreliable narrator, and I see the urge to just toss out everything they say.

On the other hand, I think that presents a bit of a false equivalence by flattening out all the context between the two statements.

If someone says two contrasting things, EVERY TIME I'm going to defer to:

1) The thing that was said under oath vs. the thing that wasn't said under oath.

2) The thing that puts the speaker in a negative light vs. the thing that doesn't (we all like to positively frame ourselves, and should perk up when people aren't doing that).

3) The thing that exposes the speaker to significant legal ramifications vs. the thing that doesn't.

4) The thing for which other evidence lines up vs. the thing for which other evidence does not.

FWIW I also don't think the question of if she's just unreliable or if she filed a false report and was reliable under oath is just an academic one.

If the judge deems that she's just unreliable, she can still think this should go to trial (the standard for that is low), whereas if she thinks her sworn testimony is the accurate one then this doesn't go to trial.

*Assuming* Foster didn't do this (if he did, he can rot), that decision has MAJOR ramifications for him and his career. If this goes to trial, even if he's found innocent that's probably going to cost him this full year of his football career. That's not a small thing. In that scenario, assuming he has a five or six year career that decision to go to trial costs him 15-20% of his lifetime earning potential for this career he's been prepping for his entire life. That's not nothing.

On the one hand, massively contradictory statements surely make someone an unreliable narrator, and I see the urge to just toss out everything they say.

On the other hand, I think that presents a bit of a false equivalence by flattening out all the context between the two statements.

If someone says two contrasting things, EVERY TIME I'm going to defer to:

1) The thing that was said under oath vs. the thing that wasn't said under oath.

2) The thing that puts the speaker in a negative light vs. the thing that doesn't (we all like to positively frame ourselves, and should perk up when people aren't doing that).

3) The thing that exposes the speaker to significant legal ramifications vs. the thing that doesn't.

4) The thing for which other evidence lines up vs. the thing for which other evidence does not.

FWIW I also don't think the question of if she's just unreliable or if she filed a false report and was reliable under oath is just an academic one.

If the judge deems that she's just unreliable, she can still think this should go to trial (the standard for that is low), whereas if she thinks her sworn testimony is the accurate one then this doesn't go to trial.

*Assuming* Foster didn't do this (if he did, he can rot), that decision has MAJOR ramifications for him and his career. If this goes to trial, even if he's found innocent that's probably going to cost him this full year of his football career. That's not a small thing. In that scenario, assuming he has a five or six year career that decision to go to trial costs him 15-20% of his lifetime earning potential for this career he's been prepping for his entire life. That's not nothing.

I can't understate how important the bolded statement is.

The burden of proof is FAR, FAR, FAR less to proceed at this stage than "beyond a reasonable doubt". It is very possible this thing goes to trial and some will see that as we may not know something yet or there is more to this story.

That's not the case.

Today is simply a decision on whether there is SOMETHING worth presenting to a jury where it is HIGHLY likely he will be acquitted. My guess is alot of the charges go away today, but it is very possible it proceeds and Reuben has to stand trial.

To me, if what appears to have happened is in fact really what happened, that's real injustice.

Not only is it the time away from his career, its his name in the mud for several months longer AND legal fees.

1) The thing that was said under oath vs. the thing that wasn't said under oath.

2) The thing that puts the speaker in a negative light vs. the thing that doesn't (we all like to positively frame ourselves, and should perk up when people aren't doing that).

3) The thing that exposes the speaker to significant legal ramifications vs. the thing that doesn't.

4) The thing for which other evidence lines up vs. the thing for which other evidence does not.

Because I think we are pretty much in agreement on everything else, I'll just address why I disagree with this part.

Yes, it's easier to believe someone when under oath, than when not under oath, but the crux here is that she said a lot of things that a person with a lawyer just shouldn't have said on the stand. This in itself should add suspicion to her testimony on the stand. What we don't know here is if there is some sort of hush deal on the side for her testimony.

At this point, I feel that Foster is likely innocent of the DV charges (with the 911 interference and gun charges not withstanding), and I feel that there is enough reasonable doubt that this portion shouldn't even go to trial, but I just can't find any good reason to believe a word she says.

Of course the fact that I can't believe a word she says, means there really isn't any evidence to charge him with the DV in the first place, so it's just that much more reason he shouldn't be tried on this particular charge.

Once that charge goes away, I think his legal team can work out a plea deal on the rest to insure no jail time

I have no idea how the league/team will handle it if that plea becomes reality.

“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

1) The thing that was said under oath vs. the thing that wasn't said under oath.

2) The thing that puts the speaker in a negative light vs. the thing that doesn't (we all like to positively frame ourselves, and should perk up when people aren't doing that).

3) The thing that exposes the speaker to significant legal ramifications vs. the thing that doesn't.

4) The thing for which other evidence lines up vs. the thing for which other evidence does not.

Because I think we are pretty much in agreement on everything else, I'll just address why I disagree with this part.

Yes, it's easier to believe someone when under oath, than when not under oath, but the crux here is that she said a lot of things that a person with a lawyer just shouldn't have said on the stand. This in itself should add suspicion to her testimony on the stand. What we don't know here is if there is some sort of hush deal on the side for her testimony.

At this point, I feel that Foster is likely innocent of the DV charges (with the 911 interference and gun charges not withstanding), and I feel that there is enough reasonable doubt that this portion shouldn't even go to trial, but I just can't find any good reason to believe a word she says.

Of course the fact that I can't believe a word she says, means there really isn't any evidence to charge him with the DV in the first place, so it's just that much more reason he shouldn't be tried on this particular charge.

Once that charge goes away, I think his legal team can work out a plea deal on the rest to insure no jail time

I have no idea how the league/team will handle it if that plea becomes reality.

As I said before, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I don't think any hush deal would be worth admitting to 3 or 4 felonies unnecessarily...and thats the weird thing...she didn't need to admit to those to clear him of wrongdoing. That's a big reason why I tend to believe her. IMO, and its only that...my opinion, she just flat broke down and admitted to EVERYTHING on the stand. She even said she was going to get help. She was balling and they had to break in order for her to compose herself.

I think this one gets understated as well...but she admitted to and went to jail for doing the EXACT same thing in 2011. That's not a statement. That's a legal record of her falsely making the exact same accusation.

Anyway, we should get alot more info today as to how this whole thing will proceed.

On a completely unrelated matter, Niners State of the Franchise is tonight and it looks like they'll be revealing a new Throwback alt uniform (looks like the All Blacks are gone). Most think it'll be the 1994 Super Bowl Uniform.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm really hoping he doesn't get tried for Weapons Changers.

..but jokes aside, yes. Hearing is at 3:30. Matt Maiocco reported there has been no movement on any agreement between DA and Defense....I'm guessing because Defense won't plead to lesser charge if they think there's a very good chance charges are dropped.

Last edited by Marvin49 on Wed May 23, 2018 2:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.

^^^ Yeah, none of us know what we’re talking about obviously, but I’m guessing the DA might rather go full tilt on the gun charge rather than plead it out to try to save face a little bit — the plea deal on the weapons charge will be announced late afternoon on a Friday a few months from now.

The witness herself creates a whole lot of reasonable doubt by herself, if that's the DA's start witness and with her history. once again creating reasonable doubt and her admission of theft. It would be hard to paint Foster as the villain here.

Create a new statute, guilty even with under oath statements of victim denying an assault is not something I think we want on the books.

To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!! Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. Member of the 38 club.

Popeyejones wrote:^^^ Yeah, none of us know what we’re talking about obviously, but I’m guessing the DA might rather go full tilt on the gun charge rather than plead it out to try to save face a little bit — the plea deal on the weapons charge will be announced late afternoon on a Friday a few months from now.

I could see that, but I really hope not.

That's just petty and playing games with a mans life in order to paint a better picture of yourself.

chris98251 wrote:The witness herself creates a whole lot of reasonable doubt by herself, if that's the DA's start witness and with her history. once again creating reasonable doubt and her admission of theft. It would be hard to paint Foster as the villain here.

Create a new statute, guilty even with under oath statements of victim denying an assault is not something I think we want on the books.

Well today the burden of proof is far less than "reasonable doubt". Its just a hearing to see if the DA can proceed to a trial. As such, entirely possible the whole thing is dropped today or a trial date is set.

chris98251 wrote:Sound like the DA was trying to career build and the Judge didn't like that she was grandstanding because of Foster being a 49er, if another person it probably would not have been pushed like this.

OK, standby. I am going to tweet Judge Klippen’s dramatic takedown of the Santa Clara County DA’s case against Reuben Foster in this thread.

Klippen began by saying what I was tweeting this morning: That the court’s decision will be based on the totality of the evidence, and not just individual pieces that have been sensationalized on social media.

Klippen emphasized that Ennis recanted just 2 days after her initial allegations. Klippen acknowledged that DV victims do often recant, so other evidence must considered. And that’s when Klippen began tearing into the DA’s case….

Klippen first addressed the topic of Ennis’ emotional state. That was conveyed by the 911 calls and by the motorist whom Ennis flagged down to call 911, Eugenio Pirir. Klippen emphasized that Ennis was abnormally calm on 2nd call, and Pirir testified she was “really calm” too

Klippen: Ennis “was unusually calm and collected” for most of the 911 dialing. She sounded frantic in one of the calls. Klippen: “Is that because the defendant was breaking up with her?” (Not because Foster was hitting her)

Klippen pointed out that only 9 minutes passed between both of Ennis’ 911 calls, and that there’d be no way she would be able to gather herself into a calm state for the second call had she really been punched 10 times by Foster.

Then, in a clear at shot at the DA, Judge Klippen noted that Pirir, the 911 motorist himself, corrected prosecutor Kevin Smith on the stand. Smith said Ennis “was running” to Pirir’s truck. Pirir corrected Smith: “No, she was not running. She was walking."

Judge Klippen then noted that there were several law enforcement officers (12, to be exact) called to the scene: “NONE of them noted that (Ennis) upset, nervous, crying, scared, or anything of that nature… (They simply noted) that the dog was OK."

Judge Klippen then noted that Los Gatos PD officer Katrina Freeman didn’t take Ennis to the hospital under 4:30 p.m., over 8 hours after she called police. The DA had no explanation for that huge time discrepancy.

Here’s a doozy, Judge Klippen on physical evidence: “There is not one photo consistent with the complaining witness’ account to suggest she was punched in the face 10 times. No broken bones, no bruises. In fact, (Ennis’) abrasions were more consistent with the fight in the video"

Judge Klippen: There was “a total absence of evidence” that Ennis feared retribution. Here, Klippen paused and repeated “No Evidence.”

More from Judge Klippen: There was also no evidence of prior abuse from Foster in the relationship. In fact, Klippen emphasized that Ennis was living a luxury life with Foster. “She had her own Corvette to drive, her phone paid for, a big house in a beautiful neighborhood."

Judge Klippen: There was “a total absence of evidence” that Ennis feared retribution. Here, Klippen paused and repeated “No Evidence.”

More from Judge Klippen: There was also no evidence of prior abuse from Foster in the relationship. In fact, Klippen emphasized that Ennis was living a luxury life with Foster. “She had her own Corvette to drive, her phone paid for, a big house in a beautiful neighborhood."

Judge Klippen also said that there was also “no evidence” that Foster talked to Ennis at any point after his arrest (there was a question about a Disneyworld trip, but I have no idea where that report came from — it simply didn’t happen).

More Judge Klippen: Ennis was just “really unhappy this was all coming to an end” (her cushy relationship with an NFL star)

More Judge Klippen: There is reliable evidence that Ennis stole $8,000, 2 Rolexes, and designer clothes from Reubem Foster after he was arrested

More Judge Klippen: Ennis put herself at “considerable peril” against advice of her attorney to testify. Klippen emphasized that Ennis contemplated and then committed to lying. She repeated “No evidence.” At this point, deputy DA Jim Demertzis, who was in the gallery, walked out.

Later, Judge Klippen dismissed Charges 1 and 2 (DV and criminal threats) against Foster. She then heard final arguments for the misdemeanor weapons charge.

Prosecutor Kevin Smith argued that since Foster was arrested with marijuana and a gun in his car in Alabama back in January, the CA weapons charge should remain a felony. Here again, Judge Klippen disagreed with the DA. She made it a misdemeanor.

Klippen then asked Joshua Bentley if Foster would like to plea to the misdemeanor weapons charge. Not yet. A hearing was scheduled for June 6, and Foster may decide to fight this charge, too.

Why make ANY statement? The process did its job. The Judge just crucified you in open court, ripped the case to shreds and said there was "No Evidense" SEVERAL times and that it NEVER should have been tried.

"Evidence Demonstrated Mr Foster seriously hurt his girlfriend"?

The evidense did NOT demonstrate that and in fact did exactly the opposite.

"we move forward on cases when victims falsely recant"?

Falsely? This is the DA doing damage control at the expense of Reuben Fosters reputation. Its sickening.

I get that a DA HAS to try a case even when the victim recants, but neither the DA nor the police even bothered to INVESTIGATE her claims after she recanted.

I think it is the right move in this case for the domestic violence charges to be dropped. BUT....... I doubt Reuben Foster will stay out of trouble for long He can have another incident within 1 - 3 months. If not then I would expect within 3 - 6 months. This guys decision making is just awful. Plus the drug problem and no small thing the very sketchy relationships and people he chooses to bring into his life.

I wouldn't get all excited. I doubt this holds up for long. But dropping these charges was probably the right thing to do.

Why make ANY statement? The process did its job. The Judge just crucified you in open court, ripped the case to shreds and said there was "No Evidense" SEVERAL times and that it NEVER should have been tried.

"Evidence Demonstrated Mr Foster seriously hurt his girlfriend"?

The evidense did NOT demonstrate that and in fact did exactly the opposite.

"we move forward on cases when victims falsely recant"?

Falsely? This is the DA doing damage control at the expense of Reuben Fosters reputation. Its sickening.

I get that a DA HAS to try a case even when the victim recants, but neither the DA nor the police even bothered to INVESTIGATE her claims after she recanted.

DA needs to be fired.

Or more likely he did it and got away with it. Be interesting to watch the victims bank account.

Why make ANY statement? The process did its job. The Judge just crucified you in open court, ripped the case to shreds and said there was "No Evidense" SEVERAL times and that it NEVER should have been tried.

"Evidence Demonstrated Mr Foster seriously hurt his girlfriend"?

The evidense did NOT demonstrate that and in fact did exactly the opposite.

"we move forward on cases when victims falsely recant"?

Falsely? This is the DA doing damage control at the expense of Reuben Fosters reputation. Its sickening.

I get that a DA HAS to try a case even when the victim recants, but neither the DA nor the police even bothered to INVESTIGATE her claims after she recanted.

DA needs to be fired.

Or more likely he did it and got away with it. Be interesting to watch the victims bank account.

What part of NO EVIDENCE, from a professional, a judge, did you not understand? There is video evidence of her fighting another woman that is consistent with Foster’s innocence, and she STOLE $8000 the day he went to jail, took pics of his car and threatened to sell them to TMZ, and on and on.

Most importantly, she has gone to jail before for a false accusation of domestic violence.

The most likely scenario is he DUMPED her BEFORE she called 911, as she initially claimed, and fabricated h abuse because she knew her cushy life was over. It was a plan to threaten him into taking her back and letting her have the corvette heblet her drive, but the DA didn’t comply with her recantation, which ruined her plan for EXTORTION.

AND ONCE AGAIN, it comes down to evidence. And the evidence for the above theory FAR outweighs the evidence of thenDAs case, as pointed out by the judge, and who absolutely SHREDDED the DA’s asshole today for pressing charges despite not only a lack of evidence, but evidence AGAINST their case.

You believe he is guilty because you WANT to.

Sports Hernia wrote:Mayfield has grown on me a bit, but I disagree with him here.

If an employer fires/terminates me, why do I owe them any sort of “loyalty”?

Why make ANY statement? The process did its job. The Judge just crucified you in open court, ripped the case to shreds and said there was "No Evidense" SEVERAL times and that it NEVER should have been tried.

"Evidence Demonstrated Mr Foster seriously hurt his girlfriend"?

The evidense did NOT demonstrate that and in fact did exactly the opposite.

"we move forward on cases when victims falsely recant"?

Falsely? This is the DA doing damage control at the expense of Reuben Fosters reputation. Its sickening.

I get that a DA HAS to try a case even when the victim recants, but neither the DA nor the police even bothered to INVESTIGATE her claims after she recanted.

DA needs to be fired.

Or more likely he did it and got away with it. Be interesting to watch the victims bank account.

As for the ‘victim’s’ bank account, the $8000 she stole was taken away and given back to Foster.

Sports Hernia wrote:Mayfield has grown on me a bit, but I disagree with him here.

If an employer fires/terminates me, why do I owe them any sort of “loyalty”?

Well I'm happy to hear that Foster is be absolved of the serious stuff. From everything that I've read and Marvin's sterling job of being Foster's personal PR rep in this thread, I think it's probably pretty safe to say that she was lying from the get-go. She deserves no credibility and I'm happy the judge threw the case out. Kid's still a moron for the weed and weapons cases, though.

The DA should not lose their job. I know it's easy to see the DA as some type of bad guy for continuing to pursue this, but pretty much all prosecuting attorneys, etc. will pursue a case until it's thrown out or they don't get enough cooperation/evidence to build even a coherent case. This is our legal system every day. I'm not an attorney, but I've had to deal with some DV issues between family and friends and even the local prosecuting attorneys will take a case with no-namers as far as possible.

JGfromtheNW wrote:Kid's still a moron for the weed and weapons cases, though.

...and for (1) giving a dilluted sample at the combine before (2) getting friggin kicked out of the combine.

Him not having done this allows him to continue to be a member of the team (and personally, someone I can -- at least for now -- still root for), but that doesn't mean there's not still a ton of red flags on him, or that the outlook for him being able to stay in the league for a long time still isn't good.

JGfromtheNW wrote:The DA should not lose their job. I know it's easy to see the DA as some type of bad guy for continuing to pursue this, but pretty much all prosecuting attorneys, etc. will pursue a case until it's thrown out or they don't get enough cooperation/evidence to build even a coherent case. This is our legal system every day. I'm not an attorney, but I've had to deal with some DV issues between family and friends and even the local prosecuting attorneys will take a case with no-namers as far as possible.

Not an attorney either, but agreed with this too.

The DA's office is getting a ton of grief for their released statement after the judge threw the case out, but I give them some leniency there. They're just trying to save face a little bit, which is something that people do, and something we can be a somewhat tolerant of, I think.

JGfromtheNW wrote:Well I'm happy to hear that Foster is be absolved of the serious stuff. From everything that I've read and Marvin's sterling job of being Foster's personal PR rep in this thread, I think it's probably pretty safe to say that she was lying from the get-go. She deserves no credibility and I'm happy the judge threw the case out. Kid's still a moron for the weed and weapons cases, though.

The DA should not lose their job. I know it's easy to see the DA as some type of bad guy for continuing to pursue this, but pretty much all prosecuting attorneys, etc. will pursue a case until it's thrown out or they don't get enough cooperation/evidence to build even a coherent case. This is our legal system every day. I'm not an attorney, but I've had to deal with some DV issues between family and friends and even the local prosecuting attorneys will take a case with no-namers as far as possible.

LOL.

"Personal PR Rep". Not quite accurate but whatever.

As for the DA, I'll respectfully disagree. Its not about pursuing this thing. Accusers recant all the time so I understand the need for the DA to push these charges after she recanted. The point there is that they are defending the accuser from themselves. The law is written to protect the victim and it HAS to be written that way.

My issue with the DA is about the fact that they never bothered to investigate her claim after she recanted preferring to push the case against Foster, make dramatic public statements before, during and after the charges were filed and dropped, and the fact that even the judge in the case blasted them for moving forward with charges to begin with.

It seems that the DA was trying to make a point about their office being willing to prosecute famous people (IE no special treatment) and they ignored the fact that there was no evidence (and this isn't my opinion...the judge stressed this SEVERAL times) that he had done this.

As for Reuben...yeah, the Marijuana and gun charges were pretty stupid. Honestly I couldn't give a damn about Marijuana (and I don't think the league should penalize for it), but the gun charge to me is the worst. It was purchased legally in Alabama, but you kinda gotta know California Gun Law if you are going to own one here.

JGfromtheNW wrote:Kid's still a moron for the weed and weapons cases, though.

...and for (1) giving a dilluted sample at the combine before (2) getting friggin kicked out of the combine.

Him not having done this allows him to continue to be a member of the team (and personally, someone I can -- at least for now -- still root for), but that doesn't mean there's not still a ton of red flags on him, or that the outlook for him being able to stay in the league for a long time still isn't good.

JGfromtheNW wrote:The DA should not lose their job. I know it's easy to see the DA as some type of bad guy for continuing to pursue this, but pretty much all prosecuting attorneys, etc. will pursue a case until it's thrown out or they don't get enough cooperation/evidence to build even a coherent case. This is our legal system every day. I'm not an attorney, but I've had to deal with some DV issues between family and friends and even the local prosecuting attorneys will take a case with no-namers as far as possible.

Not an attorney either, but agreed with this too.

The DA's office is getting a ton of grief for their released statement after the judge threw the case out, but I give them some leniency there. They're just trying to save face a little bit, which is something that people do, and something we can be a somewhat tolerant of, I think.

My problem with the statement isn't that they said something...its that even after the case was thrown out and the judge blasted them for bringing charges to begin with they essentially disparaged the accused AND the accuser in their statement.

You can say you disagree with the decision and say that you moved forward with the case because you are protecting victims of abuse without saying he caused his girlfriend great harm AND implying her recant was false. IMO, that was unprofessional.